Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the guest blogger and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Sunlight Foundation or any employee thereof. Sunlight Foundation is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information within the guest blog.

Florida has been known to have some of the most impressive open government practices. But a few recent changes threatened to shake the people’s foundation of their right to know. Our guest blogger Barbara Petersen is here today to share the Sunshine State’s new initiatives on opening up their government. Barbara is the President of the First Amendment Foundation  a private not-for profit in Tallahassee Florida which acts as an advocate for the public’s right to oversee it’s government.

Two weeks ago, Florida’s Governor Rick Scott held a press conference, announcing the launch of an ambitious project that will allow online access to much of his email correspondence and that of 11 members of his leadership team.  Project Sunburst.

According to a press release from the Governor’s Press Office, the emails will be available with search capabilities.  Project Sunburst requires that all emails sent or received by the Governor and the designated staffers be posted to the Sunburst website within seven days.  The goal, however, is posting within 24 hours of receipt or transmission, and the Governor has plans to expand the program to include other agencies within the executive branch. The launch of Project Sunburst is one of a number of Governor Scott’s transparency initiatives – a second website, FloridahasARightToKnow  launched last year, provides access to state employee salary information and state pensions of $100,000 per year or more.  The state employee information is extremely useful, providing the name of the employee, the name of the employing agency, and the employee’s annual salary and number of years employed.  The pension information is relatively worthless in comparison – the database lists each state agency and the number of employees with pensions of more than $100,000 but provides little information that would help identify the employee.

 

Many of the Scott’s detractors claim that his transparency initiatives have more to do with the Governor’s political agenda – reducing the state work force and driving down the cost of government pensions – than a desire to be held accountable.  Regardless, the transparency website, like Project Sunburst, allows for easy and free access to information that is regularly requested through routine public record requests and sets a very positive example for other state agencies and local governments – if the governor can provide online access to regularly requested records, then why can’t a school board or county commission? In the first months of the Scott administration, his Office of Open Government reported a steep increase in the number of public record requests, particularly requests from the media for the email correspondence of the governor’s top staff.  In an attempt to alleviate the workload and improve access, the First Amendment Foundation, worked with the Capitol press corps and OOG staff to devise a plan under which FAF would make weekly requests for the email correspondence of five members of the Governor’s staff; once obtained by FAF, the email records would be dumped in a DropBox, and everyone given the key. Had it only been so simple.

 

FAF dutifully made the first request on March 7, 2011, requesting all email correspondence sent or received by the Governor, his chief of staff, and the five staffers. At about the same time FAF started making its public records requests, the governor’s office announced a “cost recovery” policy for public records. Under the new policy, OOG staff would respond to each public record request with an invoice estimating the cost of providing the records; once the invoice was paid (by cash or check, credit cards not accepted), the requested records would be produced.  There would be no charge for records requests costing less than $5.  What seemed like a reasonable policy at first blush turned into the public access nightmare from hell, and because of the time it took to track requests – nearly all were provided in pieces, a few one week, the remainder months later – and the costs associated with obtaining access, FAF was forced to abandon its project after only two months.

 

We received most of the records requested that first week within a fairly reasonable period of time and at no cost.  There was one glaring example, however: it took two months and cost $788.84 to obtain about 1,100 emails from the Governor’s communications director.  According to the invoice, the staffer took an hour to review 100 emails at an hourly rate of $70.87/hour – the communications director made $147,400 per year, and FAF was charged for the 11 hours it took him to retrieve and review his emails, many of which were on his personal email account.  (In another instance, we were charged the hourly rate for a top staffer who made just over $200,000 a year or $96.64 an hour.) FAF made eight requests in all, paid about $4,000 to obtain the requested emails, and received the last batch of the records in December – ten months after the final request was made.  Ultimately, the Governor agreed to refund the costs charged for those records it took longer than 60 days to obtain and, most importantly, made important revisions to his original cost recovery policy. Project Sunburst alleviates many of the problems FAF encountered and is, in all respects, a huge step forward for the Sunshine State.  The devil, of course, is in the details.  According to the May 3 press release, emails containing exempt information will not be posted, but will be provided pursuant to a public record request (with the exempt information redacted).  It seems, then, that we will need to continue to make regular public record requests for those emails and, of course, for the email correspondence of those staffers not included in Project Sunburst. Regardless, Governor Rick Scott deserves to be commended and hopefully, others in government, both in Florida and around the country, will follow his example.

(Below are the First Amendment public records request timeline)

A timeline of Public Records Requests by the First Amendment Foundation to the Governor of Florida's Office

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the guest blogger and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Sunlight Foundation or any employee thereof. Sunlight Foundation is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information within the guest blog.

Introducing our guest blogger, Ryan Ozawa. Ryan wears many hats, in addition to being a lecturer at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, he is also a technology Cohost at Hawaii Public Radio and a Communications and Project Manager at Hawaii Information Service. You can read more of his thoughts at Hawaii Blog or follow him @hawaii.

If a good compromise is one in which neither side is satisfied, a new bill passed by the Hawaii state legislature is an unmitigated success.

The state Office of Information Practices, dedicated to "ensuring open government" but headed by a political appointee, supported amendments to Hawaii law that would give government agencies a process by which they could fight requests for information in the courts.

Open-government and media organizations fought the measure, saying it created a costly and cumbersome process that goes in the wrong direction. Yet, even some of the government bodies that would be given more options to fight information disclosure decisions by the OIP were against the bill, saying the measure “goes too far.”

The OIP was designed to administer Hawaii’s two main open records laws: the Uniform Information Practices Act , and the Sunshine Law, coverning public meetings. Those laws were instituted with the clear intent to guarantee the public’s access to government information, and the UIPA goes as far as to say that a government agency “does not have the right to bring an action in circuit court” to contest a ruling by the OIP to release requested information.

Unfortunately, the Sunshine Law -- which has been around since 1975, but was only added to the OIP’s responsibilities in 1988 -- had no such provision. So after the OIP told the Kauai County Council it had to release requested information, the council sued the OIP, and won.

The OIP, which has already been consistently underfunded and understaffed, perhaps rightfully concluded that the Kauai case created an opening through which all its rulings could be contested in court. So SB2858 puts a process in place for judiciary review.

Open government advocates pushed instead for lawmakers to close the door to lawsuits under the Sunshine Law the same way the UIPA did. Alas, the courts are often the final arbiter on any law... even laws written specifically to limit their authority.

SB2858 requires government agencies to notify the OIP of their intent to contest a ruling to release information within 30 days. And the OIP would have 30 days to compile and present its justification for its ruling to the court. Watchdog groups and journalists say SB2858 will only add even more delays to the already slow and arduous process of obtaining government records, delays that can often kill the relevance of the requested information.

But government agencies may not be so eager to contest every request automatically. While SB2858 does set up rules by which they can take OIP decisions to court, it also sets a high standard for them to make their case.

First, a government agency can’t merely tell the OIP it will fight its decision, saving all of its justifications for the judge. Instead, government agencies have to make their best and most complete case to the OIP, because except where there are “extraordinary circumstances,” the courts will only be able to review the same information the OIP had when making their decision.

And secondly, the courts are only allowed to overturn an OIP ruling when it was “palpably erroneous,”or obviously or clearly wrong. If the OIP’s ruling that a record should be released is merely shaky or fuzzy, then, the OIP’s ruling should stand.

These restrictions, as a result, made some government agencies oppose a bill that seemed designed to empower them in resisting public records requests. Danny Mateo, chair of the Maui County Council, testified against the bill, which he said granted the OIP “quasi-judicial authority.”

Nonetheless, SB2858 SD1 HD2 CD1  passed its final reading in the House on Thursday last week, and will most certainly be signed by Gov. Neil Abercrombie.

The Office of the Governor submitted testimony that said it “strongly supports” the bill, as did Cheryl Kakazu Park, whom Gov. Abercrombie appointed to head the OIP. Of course, Park got the job after her predecessor, Cathy Takase, was fired, a move that just happened to come after Takase ruled against the governor’s attempts to withhold a list of names of juidicial candidates. A list that he ultimately and reluctantly was forced to release anyway.

Ryan is also organizing a Sunlight Meetup in Honolulu on Wednesday this week which you are welcome to join.

There have been lots of conversations recently -- most of them provocative in the good sense of that word -- about the success or failure of the open data and/or open government movements. I have just a few thoughts to add that I hope amplify Sunlight's position.

Sunlight believes in open data and open government not because these are abstract goods, but because we want to make government more accountable to ordinary people and less subservient to well-connected special interests. We think it's great that more consumer-facing data will be opened up by the Obama administration (aka "smart disclosure"), and we want the "operating system" of government open and free, along with many others. And to be sure, there are many additional benefits to be had from opening up government data including increasing efficiency, reducing waste, creating new business opportunities and empowering consumers.

But we remain insistent that a central if not the core goal of the transparency movement must be to shift power from the few to the many, by making all the information about who is trying to influence the process and what they get out the other end more accessible to all. That's why we keep a large part of our attention focused on opening up the political influence arena and exposing the lobbying culture, and that's why we called out (back in September 2010) the inadequacies of the Obama administration's implementation of its open government directive; why we criticized the extra-governmental crackdown on WikiLeaks; and why we will continue to press both sides of the aisle and the regulatory agencies to force open the exploding world of "Dark Money" super PACs being employed by Republican and Democratic operatives alike.

I've been at these fights a few decades now, and I have never been more optimistic. The culture of transparency as an instrument of accountability -- by citizens and government alike -- is now generally accepted. The strategy of pushing and pulling Washington -- and every state capitol and every government in the world -- will be done by the tens of millions of people online demanding answers to their questions and who will, eventually, vote based on the answers they receive or don't. Information is the key to action.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the guest blogger and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Sunlight Foundation or any employee thereof. Sunlight Foundation is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information within the guest blog.

Today's guest blogger is another example of how all citizens regardless of their professions, can be players in participatory politics. Joining us from Arkansas is Paul J. Spencer. Paul has taught Political Science and History at Catholic High School for Boys for the last 13 years.  He is Chairman of the Regnat Populus 2012 Ballot Question Committee. You can follow him on Twitter @RegnatPopulusAR.

Teaching Government and Politics to high school seniors year after year begins to have a curious effect on the teacher.  I have known other teachers and professors before me that evolved to being confirmed Socialists upon their retirement.  Perhaps it is the youthful innocence of engaged students that begin to observe that money has a greater role in the political process than do actual people that causes this evolution of thought over time.  For myself, there came a time at which I felt that merely teaching my students the problems in our American political system was no longer enough.

I began to recognize a self-perpetuating cycle in American electoral politics today. This whirlpool consists of the following components:

• First, a lack of electoral and lobbying transparency that allows moneyed interests to have a greater voice in the electoral process than actual voters.
• Second, a lack of responsiveness of our elected officials to their constituents who have very little to do with the success of the politician’s reelection campaign.
• Third, a lack of true representation for the interests of citizens above those of money.
• Fourth, a creation of a culture of lack of accountability to voters within the body politic.
• Fifth, voter “disconnect” with their elected representatives.
• Sixth, voter apathy and disengagement with the political process in general.

The sixth component curtails citizens’ ability to properly channel their dissatisfaction with the political process towards a productive end, thusly enabling the cycle to begin anew.

I imagine I began to feel the need to free myself from Vicious Cycle Component #6 after the infamous Citizen’s United vs. FEC Supreme Court ruling  in 2010 which gave corporations unlimited spending ability in political campaigns.  This, coupled with the global financial meltdown of 2008 and the appalling lack of accountability our government placed on those responsible, compelled me to attempt to engage as best I could in fighting to at least expose these injustices as so many ordinary Americans have done before me.  My wife and I joined the Occupy movement in Little Rock, Arkansas last October.  We participated in marches and General Assemblies but over time felt a desire to engage IN the political process to try to effect some change through legislation.  We met at a downtown pizza joint and discussed various options that could be attempted with interested academics and activists.  It turned out that my wife’s brother’s best friend from high school had been working on campaign and lobbying reform (Little Rock is a small town) and we hooked up with him.  We envisioned using the Ballot Initiative process to craft a law to curb some of the worst ethics abuses in a state which had just received a D+ from the Center for Public Integrity on its "Corruption Risk Report Card". We formed a Ballot Question Committee whose name was derived from Arkansas’ State Motto: “Regnat Populus” or “The People Rule”.   To make a long story short, with much collaboration of generously donated legal talent, various Occupiers and also fellow teachers I work with, The Regnat Populus 2012 Ballot Question Committee finally birthed The Campaign Finance and Lobbying Act of 2012.  The components of the Act in brief are to:

• Disallow direct corporate contributions in Arkansas elections (as the law currently provides in Federal elections).
• Raise the “cooling-off period” for the revolving door from legislator to lobbyist from the current 1 year waiting period to 2 years.
• Disallow any gifts or meals whatsoever from lobbyists to legislators (not even a cup of coffee).

Because our movement arose spontaneously in response to real events in America today (namely, the Occupy Wall Street movement), we do not have the luxury of time and do not have large moneyed backers to accomplish our goal of 62,507 signatures by a July 6^th deadline.    However, we certainly do have public opinion on our side.  A recent Arkansas poll showed us to have a 69% voter approval rate for this initiative across all political demographics.  We envisioned a wide spread network of canvassers taking action as citizens to break the cycle of voter apathy and political unresponsiveness.   That is the challenge we now face.  Almost every one of us involved in this committee has full time jobs.  We are teachers, a Presbyterian minister, a nurse, an engineer, a non- profit staffer, retired military, and students combined with the generously donated talent of attorneys that want to work to have a system in which legislators are as accountable to the voters as they are to the influence peddlers in state government.

Thus far, we have garnered $2,525 from individuals that has covered printing and postage costs.  There has been slow response from progressive groups in Arkansas to back the measure as noted by Dr. Jay Barth, Political Science professor at Hendrix University in a recent article.  Some fear the measure may hurt the means that legislators gain information, namely from conferences sponsored by industry.  These travel expenses would be banned by the Act.  This point elucidates the game-changing nature of this Initiative.  Putting lobbyists for childrens’ and anti-poverty advocacy groups, and environmental groups on a level playing field with Koch brother funded lobbyists that want to develop around the lake that supplies Little Rock’s drinking water would completely change the way business is done at the Capitol.

We currently stand at a critical juncture.  We have approximately 100 volunteer canvassers working throughout the state.  We have been endorsed by the local and state chapters of the Sierra Club and have state citizen advocacy groups actively canvassing and working with us.  We have been encouraged by the response of Arkansans when asked if they would like to sign our petition, replying “HELL, yes” after hearing the components and then volunteering to canvass themselves.

Many political insiders have scoffed at our “naïve” attempts to face the odds that stand before us.  But I take comfort in the wisdom of the late historian, Howard Zinn, whose perspective over America’s long span of history is useful to contemplate today.

“TO BE HOPEFUL in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

We do still need more financial support to spread canvassing efforts to include supporting those that would like to canvass full time.  We do still have a great challenge before us.  But events related to this campaign are unfolding on a daily basis in new and encouraging ways.   We believe that the corrupting influence of money in our political system is the defining issue America faces today.  NOW is the time to act to allow the people to truly rule.

 

Please visit our website www.thepeoplerule2012.com for more information.  I’m just going to come right out and say it-any donations would be greatly appreciated.

             

All is not well in the Aloha state. “Sunshine” advocates including Rep. Barbara Marumoto are rising up to oppose a recent attack on Hawaii’s open government. A new bill that was introduced earlier this year is set to intentionally delay responses to public records requests. SB2858 “Creates a process for an agency to obtain judicial review of a decision made by the Office of Information Practices relating to the Sunshine Law or the Uniform Information Practices Act, and clarifies standard of review.” In other words the bill ironically referred to as “relating to open government” instead takes a jab at everything open and has been likened to a closed government bill.

In summary, SB2858 will make it more difficult for the public and media to find out what is going on in state government by:

• Delaying the release of information under the Uniform Information Practices Act.
• Forcing the public to spend money on legal fees in order to access data which should be made available in the first place.
• Giving agencies the freedom to challenge an Office of Information Practices (OIP) ruling in court.
• Setting state agencies in opposition against each other in a bid to comply with practices within the Uniform Information Practices Act.

It goes without say that if this bill is approved, Hawaii’s history of maintaining a decent record in keeping an open government will be tainted. Worse, we will have no idea what the government is doing and when it is doing what it’s doing -- unless of course if we are willing to go to court to find out. Effective July 1, 2030, the anti transparency bill sadly has the support of Gov. Neil Ambercrombie who is already said to be a secretive governor.

Allowing government agencies such as Hawaii’s Department of Land and Natural Resources (a supporter of the bill) to appeal unfavorable Office of Information Practices rulings -- as this bill proposes to do -- shows that government is clearly putting their own first and the public second. Hawaii’s legislature has a Submit Online Testimony where the public can send in their testimonies and hopefully convince everyone involved that this bill is bad for transparency -- just as Common Cause Hawaii did.

 

Common Cause Hawaii Testimony on SB2858

This post was written by Policy Fellow Matt Rumsey. A version was cross-posted on Greater Greater Washington where Matt is a contributor. 

Washington, DC has a unique form of hyper local government.  Advisory Neighborhood Commissions  are psuedo-legislative bodies that represent neighborhood clusters and weigh in on a variety of local issues and provide constituent services. ANCs are made up of single member districts with each commissioner representing around 2,000 residents. There are currently 37 Commissions spread across the city.

The chairman of one of these commissions stole about $30,000 from his ANC last year. DC agencies struggle to provide enough oversight of dysfunctional ANCs. The District can start to increase accountability and transparency by making ANC financial reports available online.

ANCs must provide the DC Auditor with quarterly financial reports. The DC Auditor is responsible for auditing the financial information, maintaining a database of the information, and ensuring that the reports are in compliance.

It would be a small step to also make this information readily available to the public. The press and interested members of the public could then monitor the ANC financial reports and identify mistakes, omissions, and inconsistencies that may have been missed.

Under the current system, the DC government is not providing the resources required for adequate oversight. The size and scope of the ANC system outweighs the resources dedicated to overseeing it. The DC Auditor has many other responsibilities and the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, charged with administrating ANCs, only has two full-time staff members.

With financial information effectively hidden from the public, it takes extremely diligent individuals significant effort and time to uncover improper or missing information. In September 2011, the Washington Times discovered that the DC auditor approved ANC financial reports that were missing basic information, proper signatures, or evidence of tax deductions. The Times also reported that the Office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions doesn't maintain records from the ANCs.

In the ANC 5B scandal, the DC Auditor initiated an audit after failing to receive financial reports for 3 consecutive quarters. The DC auditor currently posts a list detailing if and when ANCs submitted their financial reports.

If the database were available online, the public could have more easily and quickly found out about the DC Auditor's and the ANCs' failings, without having to rely on intrepid reporters sifting through hidden data.

Making this database available online should not place an undue burden on individual ANCs or the DC Auditor. But it will allow the press and public to better scrutinize these elected officials. Knowing that their records are easily available to the public may also encourage ANCs to follow proper financial procedure.

The ANC system is due for change. Putting these documents online would be a small step in the right direction.

Working on our short documentary series called OpenGov Champions I get to go and hang out with some extremely smart, creative and inspiring people. The Champions are ordinary citizens who do some extraordinary work to open up their local government data in big or small ways, not because someone asked them to, but because they are either fed up with not having access to information they need or simply because want their communities to flourish. To me, this is far more interesting as a storyteller and documentary filmmaker than interviewing seasoned politicians, spokespeople or experts. These are the kind of stories that are the fodder of classic storytelling and moviemaking. They are real life stories of the quintessential American heroes: Ones who defeat the odds by taking the matters into their own hands and create real change by strong will, passion and hard work.

Working on these mini documentaries is the favorite part of my job. The Champions open up their homes to me and I get to spend a few hours interviewing and getting to know them, and then a week or so putting the video together. As I watch the raw footage over and over again, looking for core of the story, I feel like I really get to know them quite well. And I always have a hard time with the inevitable elimination of footage, (called “killing your darlings” in editor talk.) They always say so many interesting things with insight, humor and wisdom that I would love everyone to hear. Yet I need to cut a lot out to get to the heart of the story and tell it in about three minutes.

I was first a little nervous calling Laura Amico to talk about doing a video about her. I had heard about Homicide Watch DC, and the imagery it had sprung in my mind was of some hardened-by-life, don’t-mess-with-me reporter straight from a film noir movie. You’d have to be to handle all that horror and heartbreak associated with homicide reporting, right? But I was relieved to find that she was none of that. To the contrary. When my coworker Kevin and I went to interview Laura and her husband Chris, who also works on the site, their warm and tranquil apartment smelled of something delicious cooking. They were a delight to work with. We stayed for more than three hours and yet they gracefully kept talking to us despite it getting late and their dinner delayed. In the course of the interview she explained that even though it is hard work sometimes, what makes it worth it is that they have been able to create this place where families and friends, teachers and co workers of victims -- and suspects for that matter -- can find information they need and support each other through the tough times. I find it remarkable that she can keep on doing this work without becoming the toughened reporter I imagined her to be in the process.

The story of Homicide Watch shows how open data and government transparency touch upon a wide variety of issues and affect so many different groups of people. Be it environmental, political, civil rights related, social, or any other small or big cause, it will likely at some point benefit from open and easy access to government data. In Laura’s case, it is violent crime data from the courts and police departments in DC.

I am not really a wonk. But I do care about transparency and openness in our government. Talking to the OpenGov Champions to me speaks more about the OpenGov movement than the more technological or political chatter you hear so much here in D.C. What I, and many others like me need in order to “get it” is a story, a human face that can connect the dots for us and show us what others do and that we can do that too. And I believe most of us need inspiration from others from time to time. Meeting the people who participate in the OpenGov movement in their own ways makes it real to me and makes me feel I'm part of a larger community.

It gives me hope to see that I don’t have to run for office or know the secret handshake in order to make change. Ordinary people coming together are what it takes -- sharing stories like this one and using them to build support for real change -- for transparency and openness in all our communities. That’s why we started this series, and I hope you all can gather around this modern version of the campfire and enjoy the story.

• In Rhode Island, a public records law might get a much-needed revamp if a bill heard by the House Judiciary Committee this week becomes law. The proposal was introduced by Representative Michael Marcello and would be the first amendment to the state’s Public Records Act in 15 years. According to RI Future, the legislation would, “decrease the amount of time a public agency has to make public records available from ten to 7 days; require municipalities and government agencies to designate and train a public records officer; require police departments to make initial arrest reports available within 24 hours; and would make correspondences between elected officials regarding policy public documents.” Citizens in Rhode Island have had a difficult time of accessing public information in the past. Civil liberties and open government activists applauded the effort, hoping it would improve the state’s access to public records. “This may impose some additional burdens on government employees but it should be accepted as an important part of their work,” said Steve Brown, the executive director of the RI ACLU. For more information, see Bob Plain’s post.
• Members of the meet up group Open Government Chicago demoed some of the newest web-based applications created by local programmers. These apps utilize public data and could be helpful to Austin citizens. Some of the most interesting aps included Chicago Potholes, an app that “displays the open pothole requests on a city map” and MetroChicagoData.org, a  federated data site that makes it easy to “obtain datasets on one website instead of going to each level of government for the various sets of information.” For more of these exciting open government apps, see Ellyn Fortino’s post on Austin Talks.
• In a March 27, 2012 letter, Mercer County Prosecutor Joseph L. Bocchini, Jr. criticized the Trenton City Council  for failing to  make "available to the public written minutes of [Council] meetings for a substantial period of time." He maintained that meeting minutes should be made “promptly available'” to the public and  pointed out that a 1986 court decision defined "promptly available" as meaning within two weeks after the meeting. He asked that the council provide him  "with a timetable when minutes from past meetings will be complete and available to the public." John Paff of NJ Open Government Notes maintains, “ It's not often that a county prosecutor enforces the Open Public Meetings Act.  Bocchini's letter is refreshing and may help convince other prosecutors around New Jersey to take action on complaints about tardy disclosure of meeting minutes. “ For more on his take, see his post.
• New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's aides are “clearly unhappy” with a poll that included what they say is a leading question on transparency. The question read, “Governor Andrew Cuomo and the leaders of the Senate Republican and Assembly Democratic majorities are being criticized for secrecy in negotiating major policy deals, then quickly voting at night on the measures. Do you think these closed-door negotiations were necessary to achieve major policy deals or not?” Subsequently, the governor had to  answer questions clarifying  his own definition of transparency,  which is mostly focused on traveling the state to explain his budget and agenda directly to voters. For the whole story see Nick Reisman’s post on Capital Tonight.

It's always refreshing to see students interested in opening up their government. Showcasing a student-run government transparency project in Utah, is guest blogger Randy Dryer. Randy is the Presidential Honors Professor at the University of Utah and one of two faculty members teaching the Honors Think Tank on Transparency and Privacy this academic year. You can read more of his work on utahtransparencyproject.org  or follow him @medialawguy  

On April 11, 2012 ten University of Utah Honors students will launch a state-wide public initiative which, if successful, will forever change how Utah citizens interact with their local governments.  The initiative, called the Utah Local Government Transparency Project, (the “Transparency Project”) is the end result of eight months of study by the students in an Honors College Think Tank on Transparency and Privacy.  The Think Tank explored the often competing paradigms of privacy and transparency and heard from leading local and national experts in the area of open government and privacy  (including Daniel Schuman of the Sunlight Foundation)  to gain a comprehensive understanding of the complexities, nuances and challenges of balancing and reconciling these two competing interests.  We learned many things, including the fact that local governments in Utah, with some notable exceptions, lagged behind many of their counterparts around the nation in terms of transparency.  A study of 16 selected Utah local governments conducted as part of the Project demonstrated a wide disparity in government transparency practices and identified many transparency deficiencies.  From this in-depth study the Transparency Project was born.  As explained in greater detail below, the centerpiece of the Project is five transparency “best practices” for local governments to adopt.

The Think Tank on Transparency and Privacy The Think Tank on Transparency & Privacy was the first University of Utah course to be completely transparent and accessible not only to the University community, but to the public at large via a public course web page. Each weekly three hour class session was videotaped and posted on the course web page, as was all student written work product, guest presentations and weekly student oral presentations on selected transparency and privacy topics.  Throughout the course, students made daily posts to their required Twitter accounts and weekly posts to their blogs about the transparency and privacy issues being discussed.  These posts were linked to the course web page as was a public comment feature where persons outside the class could comment on the student’s work product or on any issue being discussed.  This online public content spurred a lot of conversation among students and members of the outside community.  The web page had thousands of page views and hundreds of posted comments.  The course was nicknamed a “Think Tank in a fishbowl.”   Its novel approach to instruction was featured in a story by a local daily newspaper in Salt Lake. At the end of the first semester, the students were divided into a transparency team and a privacy team and each team set about to develop a project that would take what they had learned in the classroom and apply it in a practical way that would  have a life and impact outside the classroom.

The Utah Local Government Transparency Project

In creating a practical transparency project, the students took to heart Thomas Jefferson’s admonition that “information is the currency of democracy.” The students designed an initiative which will make local governments truly open and accessible to citizens and lay the foundation for greater citizen engagement with government.  The centerpiece of the Project is a set of five transparency “best practices,” which reflect the best and most current thinking of experts on open government.  These five best practices recognize and leverage recent advances in digital and other new technologies.  The best practices build on the prior work of the Sunlight Foundation (recommended guidelines for transparency in government web sites) and expand the concept of transparency beyond traditional public access to records.

The best practices set forth five broad recommendations and include specific steps an organization should take to implement the five recommendations. The recommendations include:

1. Establishing a single “open government” web page through which  a citizen may access all information and services of the governmental entity in three or fewer “clicks;”
2.  Digitizing all information that is collected, generated or maintained by government so that it may be remotely accessed by citizens free of charge;
3.  Treating emails, text messages, instant messaging and other electronic communications made with government supplied equipment as publicly accessible records regardless of how such records are classified under state law;
4. Encouraging all elected and non-elected senior administrators  to commit to developing a culture of transparency within the government and its employees that permeates all levels of the governmental entity; and
5. Making meetings of all policy-making bodies truly open by streaming meetings live on the internet, recording meetings and posting the video and audio on the web page and allowing citizen participation in public meetings via a real time remote connection.

A complete listing of the five best practices may be found on the project web site at Utah transparency Project.

The transparency project has the support and endorsement of several Utah news organizations, NGO’s and foundations, including the Utah Press Association, the Utah League of Women Voters, the Utah Broadcasters Association, the Utah Foundation for Open Government, Utah Common Cause, the Utah Media Coalition and The Sutherland Institute.

The Transparency Project Public Kickoff

On April 11, 2012 the Project will be officially launched at a news conference where a formal request to consider and adopt the best practices will be sent to all 273 local governments in Utah.  The Mayor of Salt Lake City and the Chair of the Salt Lake City Council have personally endorsed the Transparency Project and are committed to adopting the best practices in the state’s capitol city.  The progress of the effort may be followed on the Project’s web page and Facebook page.

• The Arizona Public Interest Research Group  awarded Arizona an A-minus on how it helps taxpayers find information online pertaining to  government spending. The high grade was mostly because of OpenBooks.az.gov, a state website that offers a searchable database of state expenditures. The launch of site raised Arizona’s grade from an F in 2010 to A-minus in 2011. Representative Kimberly Yee, the sponsor of legislation aimed at increasing government transparency, maintains,“People need to see where money is being spent so they can hold elected officials accountable. “ For more information, see Devin McIntyre ‘s post on the Tucson Sentinel. 
• In honor of Sunshine Week, Kentucky’s Adair County Community Voice utilized citizens to perform a local records audit. According to the Kentucky Open Government Blog, “The weekly newspaper engaged eight ‘average citizens’ to seek specific records from eight public agencies and published the generally good findings in last week's paper, with an explanation of the audit and the issues, and an editorial by Editor-Publisher Sharon Burton giving her motives.” For the most part, the audit revealed that  most institutions readily complied with the information requests. However, they found the least cooperation when they asked law-enforcement agencies for salary information. For the entire story, check out Al Cross’ post.
• This week, Tennessee lawmakers quietly sealed public records pertaining to education.  The Senate State and Local Government Committee and the House State and Local Government Subcommittee passed bills to make the results of teacher evaluations confidential. According to KnoxNews, lawmakers used a questionable exception to exempt the teacher evaluations from the Public Records Act. "So much for transparency in government," laments Kent Flanagan, director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government. For the whole story, check out Jack McElory’s post on KnoxNews.
• In slightly related news, even though Tennessee’s state government ranks among the ten most transparent in the country, it earned a grade of C+ for its laws promoting transparency and punishing corruption. According to a report by the Center for Public Integrity, Public Radio International and Global Integrity, Tennessee sends a “mixed ethics message.” Elizabeth Bewley points out, “The report’s authors said Tennessee’s 2006 ethics reform bill has helped, but the Tennessee Ethics Commission created by the bill hasn’t lived up to expectations.” For her entire take, check out her post on the Tennesseean.